NASA will send second Mars rover in 2020, send humans in 2030s

The administration will play small roles in Europe-led missions in 2016, 2018.

A rendering of the ExoMars rover, in which NASA will play a reduced role.

NASA has announced plans for a second Mars rover to launch in 2020, while maintaining small roles with missions planned by the European space agency. If all goes as planned, NASA hopes to put astronauts in orbit around Mars by the 2030s, per the wishes of President Obama.

The current Mars budget is $581.7 million, but back in February was set to be cut by over $200 million, according to two scientists briefed on the matter who spoke to the Associated Press. According to the AP, the European Space Agency spoke to Russia about filling the US’s vacancy in the programs, which would map sources of methane on Mars and drill into the ground for evidence of life.

In a press event at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union, NASA associate administrator for science John Grunsfeld announced that the administration will in fact play roles in the two ESA missions. NASA will provide the UHF communications systems for the 2016 mission, and in 2018 will provide a molecular analyzer for the ExoMars rover. Grunsfeld noted that the Russian space agencies will constitute a “major partnership” in both ESA-led missions.

As for the NASA-led mission to launch in 2020, Grunsfeld noted that NASA will begin work on the rover imminently, with the same team that worked on the Curiosity rover wandering Mars right now. He noted that the spare rover parts designed for the Curiosity mission would become "prime for the 2020 mission."

Looking beyond the next decade, Grunsfeld stated support for President Barack Obama’s desire to send humans to Mars. In a press release related to Grunsfeld’s announcement, NASA stated that “the 2020 mission will constitute another step toward being responsive to high-priority science goals and the president's challenge of sending humans to Mars orbit in the 2030s.”

Grunsfeld made note of budgetary concerns between allocations made by ESA versus those made by NASA, stating “these ExoMars missions are not in [ESA’s] science portfolio… at NASA we have different buckets representing the science piece.”

Part of the budgetary problem is that current programs have run over budget, including the James Webb Telescope, which was originally budgeted at $3.5 billion but is now projected for $8 billion. The Mars science laboratory also ran over to $2.5 billion from its original projected cost of $1.5 billion. The press release notes that the 2020 mission fits within the five-year budget plan in Obama’s 2013 budget, and is “contingent on future appropriations.”

Promoted Comments

"Part of the budgetary problem is that current programs have run over budget, including the James Webb Telescope, which was originally budgeted at $3.5 billion but is now projected for $8 billion."

Of course what the politicians never like to mention is that a large part of that cost over-run was at the request of Congress which wanted to budget less each year for more years, creating an overall costlier program. Congress was specifically told how much time and money would be added by their requested yearly budget reductions.

Another big chunk of that "over-run" wasn't even an over-run. The cost of operating the telescope wasn't added to the budget until recently. It wasn't added earlier because no one had a decent estimate for those operational costs at such an early stage, but it was always known those costs needed to be added at some point. That part is not a over-run, but seems to always be included when claiming how much over budget the program is.

I am surprised any image of a future rover would have a model with solar panels. If i recall correctly, the original NASA mars rovers had issues with sand accumulating on the panels and reducing the photons captured.

I am surprised any image of a future rover would have a model with solar panels. If i recall correctly, the original NASA mars rovers had issues with sand accumulating on the panels and reducing the photons captured.

You mean the rovers that are -still driving around on the surface- many, many, many years later (okay, only one of them is still, but still).

Those rovers?

Yeah, solar panels are great. They just aren't great for Hummers.

Quote:

That's a lot harder.

Was not the first step in the moon program just getting there and back without landing? Apollo 10 I think. Don't ask about Apollo 18.

The moon is a lot closer. There's absolutely no reason to send humans on an orbital flight path around Mars; if we send humans that far, it has to be to land them there.

Frankly, the best thing to do is to send people with the intention of them staying there and starting a colony. Set up labs there, and a base, and maybe even a manufacturing facility for more.

But even if we do plan on a return, there's no reason to have them not land. Any mission to Mars is going to involve them being there for a while regardless due to the sheer expense of the project.

Was not the first step in the moon program just getting there and back without landing? Apollo 10 I think.

Apollo 10's trip to 50 miles above the lunar surface wasn't anywhere near the first step, but it was one of the last. Apollo 10 was an F mission, an "all up" test of the lunar landing that included everything except the final stage of powered descent.

I am surprised any image of a future rover would have a model with solar panels. If i recall correctly, the original NASA mars rovers had issues with sand accumulating on the panels and reducing the photons captured.

You mean the rovers that are -still driving around on the surface- many, many, many years later (okay, only one of them is still, but still).

Those rovers?

Yeah, solar panels are great. They just aren't great for Hummers.

Quote:

That's a lot harder.

Was not the first step in the moon program just getting there and back without landing? Apollo 10 I think. Don't ask about Apollo 18.

The moon is a lot closer. There's absolutely no reason to send humans on an orbital flight path around Mars; if we send humans that far, it has to be to land them there.

Frankly, the best thing to do is to send people with the intention of them staying there and starting a colony. Set up labs there, and a base, and maybe even a manufacturing facility for more.

But even if we do plan on a return, there's no reason to have them not land. Any mission to Mars is going to involve them being there for a while regardless due to the sheer expense of the project.

The panels are bound to get caked in dust, and power output can be severely reduced. I do not think Hummers are the only vehicles we would want a reliable power source for. Especially if we are going to spend millions of dollars to get it to Mars.

Fortunately, there are these "Cleaning Events" which can aid in the removal of dust. As you can probably tell however, this is a poor solution.

For the US Federal Government, a 10-year plan is practically a list of things they're not going to do. A 20-year plan? Please. That's three to five presidents, ten congressional elections, and over 1.2 trillion conflicting ideological soundbites.

Was not the first step in the moon program just getting there and back without landing? Apollo 10 I think. Don't ask about Apollo 18.

10 was the "dress rehearsal," as Lee mentioned. 8 was a simple out-and-around, but did not enter orbit (it was a free-return trajectory.) It was supposed to be LM tests but the LM wasn't ready, so they decided on the circumlunar flight. Jim Lovell was CM pilot on 8; he was really happy he had the LM *next* time he flew! (9 then became the LM test.)

"Part of the budgetary problem is that current programs have run over budget, including the James Webb Telescope, which was originally budgeted at $3.5 billion but is now projected for $8 billion."

Of course what the politicians never like to mention is that a large part of that cost over-run was at the request of Congress which wanted to budget less each year for more years, creating an overall costlier program. Congress was specifically told how much time and money would be added by their requested yearly budget reductions.

Another big chunk of that "over-run" wasn't even an over-run. The cost of operating the telescope wasn't added to the budget until recently. It wasn't added earlier because no one had a decent estimate for those operational costs at such an early stage, but it was always known those costs needed to be added at some point. That part is not a over-run, but seems to always be included when claiming how much over budget the program is.

Let me know when someone figures out how to shield the astronauts from the radiation. It's not an optional feature, and no one has developed an even theoretical solution that's remotely feasible.

Are you retarded? How exactly do you think the astronauts at the ISS survive? Or do you believe they all come back with cancerous growths all over their body?

First of all, be nice.

The astronauts on the ISS are shielded by both Van Allen belts, the same magneto-electrical "force-field" that keeps most charged particles from impacting on Earth and all of its inhabitants. The astronauts traveling to Mars will not have such protection since Mars has a minute magnetic field if at all. The atmosphere is also typically less than 1% of the Earth's atmosphere so even that is not available as shielding.

The technique planned for the moon will also work on Mars. Bury the habitats in sand and rock. Won't be perfect but better than nothing.

Lately they've found that certain polycarbonate plastics have a high percentage of Hydrogen atoms that can help shield much like tanks of water seem to be able to do. Earth-built spaceships used to travel to Mars are likely to be built in such a way to enclose the astronauts living and work spaces with large tanks of water.

The water by the way will be used as "fuel" for the fuel cells likely to be used to power the space vehicle. Solar panels will be used to crack the H2O into H2 and O2 for use not only as fuel but as breathing air and drinking water. Waste products will likely need to be filtered and recycled to limit the amount of water required to coast the distance.

Let me know when someone figures out how to shield the astronauts from the radiation. It's not an optional feature, and no one has developed an even theoretical solution that's remotely feasible.

Are you retarded? How exactly do you think the astronauts at the ISS survive? Or do you believe they all come back with cancerous growths all over their body?

BTW Enraged_Camel

A certain number of the astronauts on the ISS and the Shuttle Missions have had their sperm or ova frozen so that later they would be able to have fewer worries about having children without higher chances of birth defects. Its been reported quietly. No your tax dollars did not pay for it.

The author has unfortunately confused today's development -- the announcement of a 2020 rover mission -- with earlier plans to cut NASA's planetary budget for fiscal year 2013. That budget was rolled out in February, not next week; the AP source linked to in the first paragraph of this article is from February. The two are not at odds with each other: as Grunsfeld noted in the press conference today, the 2020 rover mission fits into the budget profile from that 2013 budget proposal. I might gently suggest that the author update the article to better reflect the sequence of events.

Let me know when someone figures out how to shield the astronauts from the radiation. It's not an optional feature, and no one has developed an even theoretical solution that's remotely feasible.

Are you retarded? How exactly do you think the astronauts at the ISS survive? Or do you believe they all come back with cancerous growths all over their body?

First of all, be nice.

The astronauts on the ISS are shielded by both Van Allen belts, the same magneto-electrical "force-field" that keeps most charged particles from impacting on Earth and all of its inhabitants. The astronauts traveling to Mars will not have such protection since Mars has a minute magnetic field if at all. The atmosphere is also typically less than 1% of the Earth's atmosphere so even that is not available as shielding.

The technique planned for the moon will also work on Mars. Bury the habitats in sand and rock. Won't be perfect but better than nothing.

Lately they've found that certain polycarbonate plastics have a high percentage of Hydrogen atoms that can help shield much like tanks of water seem to be able to do. Earth-built spaceships used to travel to Mars are likely to be built in such a way to enclose the astronauts living and work spaces with large tanks of water.

I think you mean polyethylene. But if you look at the literature, there's really nothing out there that doesn't still leave the astronauts exposed to unacceptable levels of radiation. There's lots of hand-waving, but no one has come up with a design that actually keeps the astronauts safe. That's why there is so much effort right now in developing nutrition/drug therapies, because they know they cannot provide adequate shielding.

Let me know when someone figures out how to shield the astronauts from the radiation. It's not an optional feature, and no one has developed an even theoretical solution that's remotely feasible.

The SpaceX solution is to put a gigantic tank of water on the sun-facing side of the spacecraft, or perhaps all around the life system.

Fascinating. Let me know when they figure out it doesn't stop cosmic rays. And wouldn't be sufficient for a solar proton event.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying its absolutely impossible. But I'm not exaggerating when I say that no one has been able to propose a system that would result in a feasible mission. If you could let the spacecraft be orders of magnitude heavier, then maybe that's a solution. But that would tend to blow the budget on the whole mission. In such a case, you'd really end up building the shielding out of lunar regolith launched from the moon electro-mechanically. This is not realistic for the 18-28 year timeframe in the article.

The panels are bound to get caked in dust, and power output can be severely reduced. I do not think Hummers are the only vehicles we would want a reliable power source for. Especially if we are going to spend millions of dollars to get it to Mars.

Fortunately, there are these "Cleaning Events" which can aid in the removal of dust. As you can probably tell however, this is a poor solution.

I'm well aware of the dust. Its just not a big deal. We deal with it via aforementioned cleaning events, taking advantage of the natural environment of Mars to do so.

Quote:

Let me know when someone figures out how to shield the astronauts from the radiation. It's not an optional feature, and no one has developed an even theoretical solution that's remotely feasible.

Let me know when you actually do some research. The amount of radiation you'd get from such a trip would be about a lifetime dose limit for an astronaut. And that's including a round trip.

For the US Federal Government, a 10-year plan is practically a list of things they're not going to do. A 20-year plan? Please. That's three to five presidents, ten congressional elections, and over 1.2 trillion conflicting ideological soundbites.

Thats why those with bigger aspirations, those who really control things, dont bother running in silly little elections. Their plans are 50 and 100 years plans and only require buying a few key politicians to pass a few key laws for them to be implemented.

The panels are bound to get caked in dust, and power output can be severely reduced. I do not think Hummers are the only vehicles we would want a reliable power source for. Especially if we are going to spend millions of dollars to get it to Mars.

Fortunately, there are these "Cleaning Events" which can aid in the removal of dust. As you can probably tell however, this is a poor solution.

I'm well aware of the dust. Its just not a big deal. We deal with it via aforementioned cleaning events, taking advantage of the natural environment of Mars to do so.

I guess you are right. If our desire is to continue to send rovers to mars with similar low power capabilities its not much of a problem. I bet it sure is nice to have a mass spectrometer when a rover finds something interesting however. Or to be big enough to avoid getting stuck in the martian soil. Or have reliable power to feed a wide array of scientific instruments consistently throughout the year. But I agree, lets keep the bar low.

Let me know when someone figures out how to shield the astronauts from the radiation. It's not an optional feature, and no one has developed an even theoretical solution that's remotely feasible.

The SpaceX solution is to put a gigantic tank of water on the sun-facing side of the spacecraft, or perhaps all around the life system.

Fascinating. Let me know when they figure out it doesn't stop cosmic rays. And wouldn't be sufficient for a solar proton event.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying its absolutely impossible. But I'm not exaggerating when I say that no one has been able to propose a system that would result in a feasible mission. If you could let the spacecraft be orders of magnitude heavier, then maybe that's a solution. But that would tend to blow the budget on the whole mission. In such a case, you'd really end up building the shielding out of lunar regolith launched from the moon electro-mechanically. This is not realistic for the 18-28 year timeframe in the article.

Just a question, since you seemed to be so versed in the topics here. If the Earths magnetic field protects the ISS and also us, why cant a ship create a magnetic field of the same resonance and deflect radiation in the same way the Earth does?

The author has unfortunately confused today's development -- the announcement of a 2020 rover mission -- with earlier plans to cut NASA's planetary budget for fiscal year 2013. That budget was rolled out in February, not next week; the AP source linked to in the first paragraph of this article is from February. The two are not at odds with each other: as Grunsfeld noted in the press conference today, the 2020 rover mission fits into the budget profile from that 2013 budget proposal. I might gently suggest that the author update the article to better reflect the sequence of events.

Thanks for pointing that out, I've update the article to reflect that!

Let me know when someone figures out how to shield the astronauts from the radiation. It's not an optional feature, and no one has developed an even theoretical solution that's remotely feasible.

The SpaceX solution is to put a gigantic tank of water on the sun-facing side of the spacecraft, or perhaps all around the life system.

Fascinating. Let me know when they figure out it doesn't stop cosmic rays. And wouldn't be sufficient for a solar proton event.

I'm not an expert, but I would guess that the effectiveness of the water solution depends on the amount of water and the length of the journey. What would 100 feet of water and a trip time of a year do?

I'm just going off some recent interviews with Elon Musk, but he seems to be thinking big. Really big.

[quote="Chuckstar"]LOL... Humans on Mars in 18-28 years. Not a chance.

Let me know when someone figures out how to shield the astronauts from the radiation. It's not an optional feature, and no one has developed an even theoretical solution that's remotely feasible.

We do know how to generate an artificial magnetic field (MRI machines). The problem is making them powerful enough and reliable enough for the long journey to Mars. You don't have to shield the entire spacecraft, just the areas where people will be in.

December 2012: US Government gives NASA the F-22 and F-35 programs, including all current and future budget. I suspect it will cost less to get out of their contracts with Lockheed Martin than to continue with the program as-is.

July 2013: F-35s begin mass production and sale to partners. F-22s actually work as intended. Plenty of NASA's new expanded budget goes where it belongs (space programs).

July 2014: JWT launched, other programs well-funded and going ahead.

July 2020: Robotic Mars base is under construction, including greenhouses and residential spaces. Moonbase is also under construction, but taking longer due to adverse conditions. NASA's YF-22 Advanced Variable Fighter makes first trip into space and back again. Deployed as US military requires.

July 2030: Human research colony firmly established on Mars and Moon, asteroid mining is becoming more common and warp drive research looks promising.

December 2012: US Government gives NASA the F-22 and F-35 programs, including all current and future budget. I suspect it will cost less to get out of their contracts with Lockheed Martin than to continue with the program as-is.

I think I see where you're going with that, but you don't actually think NASA designs or builds any of this stuff, do you? Lockheed Martin is making Orion. Boeing is the ISS prime contractor. Questions of propriety and mandate aside, if "NASA" were running any kind of fighter program, they would develop requirements and pass those requirements on to a contractor. Probably Lockheed Martin.

Let me know when someone figures out how to shield the astronauts from the radiation. It's not an optional feature, and no one has developed an even theoretical solution that's remotely feasible.

But that's OK from a political standpoint. No one really believes we'll ever spend the money to send anyone to Mars. But the politicians want credit for thinking big. It's just a big wink-and-a-nod.

I agree that this is probably more political than realistic, but your pessimism is disheartening. 18-28 years is a long time. Technological progress is exponential, we do things today that seemed impossible 10 years ago and would be magic 100 years ago.

I'm certain that you are correct in your assertion that nobody has developed an adequate solution. However, how much work has been put into it? I doubt that it is more than just "casual" research and side-effects from other investigations. If we do intend on sending a manned mission to Mars, then this problem will get much more attention, and we are more likely to solve it (if it is solvable).

I might be naively optimistic, but I am confident that we can/could solve the problems involved. Humans have shown a remarkable tendency to do impossible things.

December 2012: US Government gives NASA the F-22 and F-35 programs, including all current and future budget. I suspect it will cost less to get out of their contracts with Lockheed Martin than to continue with the program as-is.

I think I see where you're going with that, but you don't actually think NASA designs or builds any of this stuff, do you? Lockheed Martin is making Orion. Boeing is the ISS prime contractor. Questions of propriety and mandate aside, if "NASA" were running any kind of fighter program, they would develop requirements and pass those requirements on to a contractor. Probably Lockheed Martin.

Yes, I was being a little facetious, but so long as you see where I'm going here. I'm not fussed with who NASA gets to do what - all I see is what they achieve with the money they've been allocated and in my opinion, that's a lot.

According to Wikipedia: "The $56.4 billion development project for the [F-35] aircraft should be completed in 2018"F-22:Program cost: US$66.7 billionand on NASA: Estimated Budget for 2012 = ~$17.8 billion. Combined since 2006: ~$101 billion

$56.4 billion for one plane that seems to be nothing but trouble, plus cost of manufacture.$66.7 billion for one plane that seems to also have operational issues.$101 billion for multiple successful missions, technical developments and growth in our knowledge and exploration of the universe. Besides all the far less visible programs like New Horizons and MESSENGER there's the Spidernaut, Spirit, Opportunity and of course Curiosity.

NASA just seems to get more done and have more success with less . Take whatever, and however they do things and apply it to military programs and I reckon they'd work a helluva lot better!

These NASA missions do no earthly good. Shut down space exploration and put the money into the National Institutes of Health and related programs to fund cancer research and other research initiatives to help the human race. The re-funding will have the potential to help millions and millions of people, rather than provide intellectual fodder for a small group of elitists.

I've never felt prouder to be the first one to give a new poster a -1.

I am surprised any image of a future rover would have a model with solar panels. If i recall correctly, the original NASA mars rovers had issues with sand accumulating on the panels and reducing the photons captured.

You mean the rovers that are -still driving around on the surface- many, many, many years later (okay, only one of them is still, but still).

Those rovers?

Yeah, solar panels are great. They just aren't great for Hummers.

The panels are bound to get caked in dust, and power output can be severely reduced. I do not think Hummers are the only vehicles we would want a reliable power source for. Especially if we are going to spend millions of dollars to get it to Mars.

Fortunately, there are these "Cleaning Events" which can aid in the removal of dust. As you can probably tell however, this is a poor solution.

The problem is, using a radioisotope thermal generator is also a poor solution, for an entirely orthogonal definition of "poor". In particular, the US hasn't manufactured the specific isotope of plutonium used in RTGs in about four decades (it's a different one than is used in weapons), and believe it or not we have barely enough left for one more mission. So we have to be very, very picky about what it gets used for... (Meanwhile, this past spring we finally got approved a restart of Pu-238 production, so in maybe five or ten years the situation may be improved. But that's too late for a 2020 mission to be able to count on.)

So for the time being, if any mission can possibly use solar panels, then that's pretty much the only acceptable route, no debate possible. Hence, solar panels for the next rover. For MSL (aka Curiosity), the reason it's got an RTG is that planning for it started so long ago, no one knew that wind cleaning was a feasible long term survival strategy. (One of the original mission requirements for MSL was that it was supposed to last for one full Martian year since it wouldn't be limited by dust buildup. That requirement was quietly de-emphasized once Spirit and Opportunity started counting sols by the thousand... :-)

The other thing to keep in mind is, the same Moores's-Law-type tech curve that's bringing down the costs and raising the efficiencies of solar for terrestrial power generation has parallels in space-rated panel technologies. You can get a lot more power out of a lot lower mass of panels than used to be possible. The lightweighted fold-out panels we used in Mars Phoenix knock the socks off the generation of gear used on the MERs.